Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

The Committee has announced the functionary appointments.

The current time and date is 08:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC).
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the CheckUser and Oversight teams.

Prospective applicants must be familiar with (i) policies relevant to CU and/or OS and (ii) the global privacy policy and related documents. They must have good communication and team-working skills. CheckUser candidates must be familiar with basic networking topics, SPI tools and techniques, and should be willing to volunteer at ACC or UTRS. Applicants must also be:

  • available to regularly assist with the workload;
  • familiar with Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines;
  • an administrator on the English Wikipedia;
  • at least 18 years of age and have legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence;
  • willing to identify to the WMF prior to receiving permissions.
  • willing to disclose all other accounts they have operated to the committee.

We welcome all applicants with suitable interest to apply, but this year we have particular need of the following:

  • Due to increasing activity from the Asia & Eastern Europe regions, applications are particularly sought from people familiar with ISPs and editing patterns of these regions.
  • Applicants familiar with the account creation interface or Unblock Ticket Request System are also particularly welcome.
  • Oversight applicants are especially sought from users who can handle requests between 03:00 UTC and 12:00 UTC, though administrators in all timezones are encouraged to apply.

During the vetting stage of the process, the existing functionary team will be invited to give their feedback on all applications. The committee will make the final appointments. Applicants must be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.

Further details on the appointment process may be found below.

Appointment process

[edit]
Dates are provisional and subject to change
  • Applications: 1 February to 17 February

    Candidates self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Each candidate will receive an application questionnaire to be completed and returned to the arbcom-en-c mailing list. This should include a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words, for inclusion on the candidate's nomination sub-page(s). Candidates will be sent a questionnaire to return before the nominations period ends.

  • Review period by the Arbitration Committee and Functionaries: 18 February to 28 February

    During this period, the Arbitration Committee will review applications, and ask the functionary team for their feedback.

  • Notification of candidates moving forward: 1 March to 3 March

    During this period, the Arbitration Committee will notify the candidates going forward for community consultation, and create candidate sub-pages as necessary. The pages will be transcluded to the Candidates section below prior to the community consultation period.

  • Community consultation: 4 March to 18 March

    The nomination statements are published and the candidates invited to answer standard questions and any additional questions the community may pose. Simultaneously, the community is invited to comment on the suitability or unsuitability of each candidate. These comments may either be posted publicly on the candidates' pages or submitted privately by email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Editors are encouraged to include a detailed rationale, supported by relevant links where appropriate.

  • Appointments: by 31 March

    The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before voting on a motion. When the motion is done, the appointments will be formally published on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

Candidates

[edit]

To comment on candidates, please use section edit buttons to edit the appropriate candidate subpage(s) ***

CheckUser

[edit]
Action completed in March 2015. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bbb23 (CU)

[edit]

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • I am applying for both the checkuser and the oversight tools. My principal interest is in the checkuser tool. I don’t think I’ll use the oversight tool much, but that could change over time. Obviously, I would respond to an editor who makes a request to me for suppression.
  • My interest in the CU tool stems from my experience as an SPI clerk and my overall interest in understanding how a checkuser is actually performed. I believe I have the requisite experience as an active clerk to use the tool and to use it prudently. CUs have discretion as to when to perform a checkuser, and I would approach the tool, as I do with any new tool, cautiously at the beginning as I learn the ropes,seeking guidance, as necessary, from more experienced checkusers.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have been an SPI clerk since August 2013, first as a trainee, then as a full-fledged clerk starting in May 2014. This means not only that I analyze the evidence presented when an SPI case is filed, but I also have some understanding as to the checkuser's role in the process.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I used to be a computer professional, which gives me foundational experience as to technical concepts. That said, my expertise was not in Internet addressing, so I have no direct off-wiki experience in that specific area.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No to all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • I would follow the direction of the policy, which says, "Other complaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the CheckUser tool should be referred to the Audit Subcommittee." That's slightly different from Callanecc's answer (I cheated and read it). My guess is he's right and I'm wrong, but I'll stick with answer except to qualify it with "I'll check with another CU first before taking any action" to see if my interpretation of the policy is correct and, even if it is, if the practice is different.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just quote policy: "The inter-project team is ideal for matters concerning prolific vandals or sock users, privacy-related incidents or harassment, and other global matters of interest beyond English Wikipedia."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to this question depends largely on the dispute at issue. For example, article content disputes are different from policy disputes, which are in turn different from disputes about technical issues (those are just some examples). I have less involvement in content disputes since I became an administrator, but I get involved in two ways. First, as an administrator, I find that I can often facilitate consensus building without directly participating in it. Second, as an editor, I usually try to resolve the dispute at the article talk page. However, if that fails, I don't generally take the next steps of dispute resolution. Instead, I either bow out (if I'm unwilling to see it through, it's not fair of me to "demand" anything) or I turn it over to the appropriate noticeboard, e.g., WP:BLPN if it involves a possible but not blatant WP:BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise, I'm an inactive arbitration clerk trainee. Regardless, the short answer is no. At one point I suggested I be removed completely, but I was advised to remain. I think the hope was that I would resume clerking because, at the time, more clerks were needed. New clerks have been brought on since then, so I don't think that's any longer the case. I don't anticipate going back to clerking for Arbcom. If I am appointed as a CU and/or an OS, that will take up a chunk of my time, and if I'm not, the clerking I do at SPI, which I enjoy, already takes up a lot of my "free" time now.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My expectation is that initially I will be running CUs only pursuant to requests at WP:SPI. That's what I'm most familiar with now, and doing so will permit me to get used to the tools and how to use them properly. So, if by "unilaterally" you mean on my own, I don't expect to be doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an SPI clerk, I block based on behavioral evidence frequently. Sometimes, there's no possibility of technical evidence. Sometimes, the technical evidence is not conclusive, which means that behavioral evidence is needed to block. That said, just because two users share a topic interest would unlikely be enough by itself to block them. If it were, there'd be a lot of socks on Wikkipedia. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even CUs frequently say that the tools are not always perfect. However, the outcome of a CU, as I infer from CU comments, covers a spectrum of accuracy and confidence, and sometimes other issues besides just the CU results are noted after the CU does a check. Not yet being directly familiar with a CU's tools, I don't know what "red flags" I would look for. My assumption is that would become apparent to me the more experienced I become.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Callanecc (CU)

[edit]

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hi all, I'm Callanecc and I'm applying for the CheckUser tool (that is, to retain it after my term on AUSC). I've been an admin for around a year and am currently serving as a community appointee on the Audit Subcommittee (so have used both CheckUser and Oversight) through which I've developed a reasonably in depth knowledge of the global and local policies governing the use of the tools. I've been active at SPI as a clerk and CheckUser so have gained experience in determining whether sockpuppetry is occurring based on behavioural and technical evidence, likewise I have gained a well rounded interpretation of the sock puppetry policy. I've built and developed knowledge of ISPs and the sockpuppeteers active in Asia and Eastern Europe as an SPI clerk and also since using CheckUser on accounts from those areas. I've been involved with the request an account process since 2012 and was "elected" as a tool administrator in 2013. Since having the CheckUser permission I have been one of the two most active CUs on the tool and intend to continue doing so if granted the permission after my AUSC term expires. I am also active in handling unblock requests on UTRS and am an OTRS agent.
Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
I've just given quick responses to these for now, I'll come back to them later and clean up my responses and provide more info as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    Summarising what I said in my nomination statement: I've been active with SPI since Jan 2014, ACC since Jul 2012 and UTRS since Dec 2013. So have developed good experience in these areas. Before and since having CU (on AUSC) I've made rangeblocks so am familiar with how that works (IPv4, still learning v6) and I've also been active in countering spam and spambots. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I have some experience in networking and identifying users based on user agent and login details in real life. In real life, I'm been privy to personal and confidential information about people, including my peers, which I can't share with others or with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I have both CU and OS on enwiki as a community member of AUSC, none of the other permissions on other projects. On OTRS, I have access to the Commons, Info-en (f), Permissions, Wikidata (and oversight-en-wp) queues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
I've just given quick responses to these for now, I'll come back to them later and clean up my responses and provide more info as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone asks you if a CU has been done on them, because they believe another CU has violated their privacy. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Something which I've had experience with - I'd refer them to the AUSC (and not confirm whether there is a check or not). It's important that the same standard is applied regarding whether to disclose that a check has been carried out and that AUSC is in a position to investigate. Privately, I'd probably have a look at whether the account had been checked and if it had and I thought the grounds where iffy I'd refer it to the AUSC for investigation myself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When/why should CheckUser data be sent to the checkuser-l list? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there is reason to believe that there are crosswiki elements to the disruption (whether socking, vandalism or spam). Generally ranges from which there is a reasonable amount of spam and spambots should be referred so that they can be checked on other wikis and globally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answered now
  • I've probably been involved in less consensus building about article content since becoming an admin as I've focused more on trying to facilitate discussion, at Rupert Sheldrake and G. Edward Griffin for example. Given they are controversial topics it's been interesting to see how people with very strong views try to get to a consensus and when intervention is needed. Likewise at WP:AE while consensus isn't needed, generally you try and get other people to agree with your thinking before imposing a sanction, and there have been many times when I've been involved in quite extensive discussion about whether something is a violation or not and what sanction is appropriate.
    Some time ago (by wiki standards) I was involved in writing and developing consensus for guidelines for handling feedback through the Article Feedback Tool. Developing consensus for policy, I found, was quite different from developing consensus on articles as with articles it's usually the interpretation of policies/guidelines which are in dispute. Whereas when writing them it's a lot more about an overall vision which can be very different for different people so requires quite a bit more discussion and convincing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When, if ever, do you think it's appropriate to take off-wiki activity into consideration in an SPI? GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, sometimes. There are times (with paid editing for example) where off-wiki evidence makes the case for sock puppetry (or meat puppetry) much stronger. Having said that, in my opinion, there needs to be on-wiki evidence of socking or meat puppetry taking place, not just evidence of off-wiki activity, for sanctions to be considered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

HJ Mitchell (CU)

[edit]

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hello, I'm Harry. I've been an administrator for coming up on five years. I'm far from infallible, but I like to think I do a reasonable job. My admin work is very much front-line – I deal mainly with vandalism and long-term/serious abuse; despite the tedium and the death threats, I enjoy it – I feel like I'm making a difference by keeping bored schoolchildren and deeply malicious editors away from the encyclopaedia and away from good editors, who shouldn't have to put up with such nonsense. I'm looking for a new challenge and a way to better serve the community, and taking on functionary tools looks to be sufficiently challenging while keeping me on the front line. I have tremendous respect for the current checkuser corps, but I've noticed that a small number have been shouldering a disproportionate burden; there could be many reasons for that, but many hands make light work. I'm very familiar with some of our longer-term sockpuppeteers and with SPI and the limitations of checkuser.

    I hope I've proven my discretion and trustworthiness over the years; in terms of technical ability, I'm familiar with IP addressing and useragents, and I've seen the screenshots on mediawiki.org, and I believe I know enough to be proficient. I've been consistently active as an admin for five years, logging 40,000 actions, and I would endeavour to be similarly active as functionary – it's very unlikely that I would burn out after a few months and go inactive.

Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've been an active admin for almost five years, during which time I've participated in a lot of SPIs. Generally, I get involved at SPI when there's an overlap with my normal admin work (especially long-term abuse, and I watch SPIs for several long-term sockpuppeteers). I do sometimes muck in when there's a large backlog of cases that could benefit from an admin looking at them (the backlog can appear large at times, but sometimes there's little an admin can do, and a clerk or a checkuser is required or the filer needs to provide more information, for example), and sometimes I get a request on my talk page or by email to look at a particular case. I have lots of experience of comparing sets of contributions to assess the likelihood that two accounts are being used by the same person. I'm also used to comparing IP addresses to deal with block evasion, and I'm familiar enough with IP addressing to understand things like range blocking (IPv4 more than v6, but I'm getting to grips with the latter).
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Nothing that's obviously directly relevant, but one of my off-wiki interests is event management, which often involves a lot of compilation and comparison of data on spreadsheets. A lot of that information is sensitive (like addresses and phone numbers) and has to be handled in accordance with strict UK and EU data protection laws and some of it is also the subject of non-disclosure agreements so I can operate with the necessary level of discretion.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No advanced permissions but I'm an admin on Commons, in which capacity I occasionally deal with cross-wiki issues. I do have OTRS access: to WMUK, info-en (full), Commons, permissions, photosubmission, and Wiki Loves Monuments.
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • Someone asks you if a CU has been done on them, because they believe another CU has violated their privacy. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would not be my place, especially not as a brand-new functionary, to be handling complaints or disclosing information from private logs. I would suggest they contact the enwiki Audit Subcommittee or the global Ombudsman Commission, who would then investigate if they saw fit.
  • When/why should CheckUser data be sent to the checkuser-l list? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gather checkuser-l is for coordination of issues with cross-wiki ramifications. Spambots are an obvious example—they tend not be such an issue on the English Wikipedia because we have lots of sophisticated methods for dealing with spam, but they can be a serious nuisance on smaller wikis, so when we come across them it can be well worth putting the information on the list so that CUs from other wikis can keep an eye out or share their experiences and the stewards can look into global (b)locking if appropriate. Another obvious case is cross-wiki abuse; for example there was recently a long-term sockmaster who was uploading junk images to Commons and using them for vandalism on enwiki—in a case like that it could be well worth enwiki CUs liaising with Commons CUs (or vice-versa) so that the response was consistent and to help each other prevent further abuse (for example the sockmaster might use a range or a proxy on one wiki that they hadn't used on the other).
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've of course collaborated with lots of editors on articles over the years (for example, I've written seven featured articles, all of which have gone through extensive review processes which are collaborations with other editors to make the article the best it can be). Administratively, I've done a lot of work in arbitration enforcement, where there are often complex cases that require extensive discussion between admins and between admins and parties to establish facts and (if necessary) impose appropriate remedies. My approach to disagreement is generally to seek a compromise (if I'm invested in something to such an extent that I feel the need to dig my heels in, I'm probably not objective). For example at AE there are often admins who prefer a more lenient approach and some who prefer a much stricter approach (advocating sanctions for relatively minor infringements, or advocating for sanctions at the more severe end of the spectrum); I like to think I'm somewhere in between, but there's a time and a place for both and sometimes I find myself advocating for "one last chance" or for more severe sanctions. The key is always discussion—if you can follow the other person's train of thought, you can sympathise a lot more with their conclusion (even if you disagree with it), and by softening your own position you can often get the other person to do the same and thus move closer to the middle ground.
  • When, if ever, do you think it's appropriate to take off-wiki activity into consideration in an SPI? GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "off-wiki activity" covers an awful lot of things and I'm loathe to draw bright lines to the effect that 'this always acceptable' or 'that is never acceptable' because you can guarantee that as soon as you do, you'll be presented with a scenario you hadn't imagined but which requires an exception to your bright line. As a general rule, SPI should make determinations based on on-wiki behavioural evidence. You don't need checkuser or off-wiki evidence to compare two sets of contributions. But sometimes "maybe" or "probably" are as good as you can get based on comparison of contributions, in which case other evidence might be considered, but off-wiki activity should be used rarely and cautiously and if it involves personal information should not be posted on the wiki. A scenario that springs to mind would be one in which evidence came to light that a group of accounts had been recruited on a web forum but were technically unrelated, in which case that evidence might be taken into consideration by an admin in deciding how to handle the matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You left the en.wikinews project in 2010 [2] due to concerns about how the project was functioning. Would this affect your ability to work with people from that project with cross-wiki issues? (Granted, their CUs don't really seem to be that active, but humor me ) --Rschen7754 06:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was during a turbulent period in that project's history, if memory serves. It seems they only have three CUs, of whom one is a friend of mine IRL (as are a couple of the admins there), so I can't imagine having any difficulty working with their CU team.
  • Hello, HJ. I note that you are one of the most active administrators on Wikipedia right now, working in multiple challenging areas (including arbitration enforcement). Should you be granted checkuser permissions, it would be expected that you would focus a significant amount of your volunteer time in this area. The average SPI can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 3 hours, with more complex ones requiring even more time. With this in mind, what activities are you currently carrying out that you are most likely to curtail or reduce in order to carry out the new CU responsibilities? Risker (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Risker. Thanks for the question. It's something I'd thought about before putting my name forward (I've participated in a few complex SPIs); I don't have a firm answer but I'll share my train of thought. I don't do much deletion work; I've done some speedy deletion in the past, cleared out expired PRODs, closed AfDs but I don't do much of it these days. The areas I work in that tend to suffer from a lack of available admins are mainly UAA and RfPP; both can be quite time-consuming because they get backlogged easily. There's also AIV, which has plenty of admins watching but tends to be time-sensitive. I spend quite a bit of time patrolling my watchlist, which includes a lot of problem BLPs, targets for long-term sockpuppeteers, a few dozen SPIs, and other things. Then there's AE, which can be complex and time consuming, but there have been more admins willing to stick their heads above the parapet there in recent months and the fallout from gamergate is beginning to dissipate so the workload there isn't as immense; I've become sort of the resident uninvolved admin in the Arab-Israeli dispute because I've been enforcing sanctions there for a long time and I'm familiar with the editors there, including the prolific sockpuppeteers, so I would probably continue with that work if appointed a checkuser, but I might not get involved with other topic areas if I was short on time, especially those that have their own 'resident admins'.

      Essentially, functionary duties would come first because there are fewer people who can handle them; I do have the tenacity to continue an investigation to its conclusion and I'm not likely to abandon or avoid a complex SPI because of competing priorities. That might mean it takes a little bit longer for a vandal to be blocked or a page to be protected or an enforcement request to be handled, but there are hundreds of admins who can remedy that, whereas there are only a few dozen functionaries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given your very active role in frontline administration and the large value that many place on it below, why do you want to step back from that to take on CU and OS responsibilities? If it was just a matter of adding to those, I'd support this without a second thought; what gives me pause is what we might lose if you do less regular admining. Don't you think you're actually of more value to the community in your current role? GoldenRing (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there are ostensibly ~1400 admins (though a hard core of about 100 do most of the work, and half the admin corps hasn't made a logged action in the last six months) so there are a lot more people who could deal with the common-au-garden vandalism than there are who can deal with things that require advanced permissions. My main interest is in long-term abuse and other things that are clearly well thought-out rather than just replacing an article with profanities for "lulz". That's where checkuser in particular would be useful—with just the admins tools, it's very difficult to deal effectively with things like this (a string of autoconfirmed accounts and IPs bouncing around a large range being used for obscene abuse; the SPI doesn't tell the whole story, but that's some of the worst abuse I've come across as an admin; not the worst, but certainly in the top 10), or this (mostly just trolling, but can be more sinister), or this (responsible for most of this, much of it which has been oversighted, and this, admin only I'm afraid, and similar abuse elsewhere), or even just coordinated spam attacks. Those are some of the longer-running examples, but there's no shortage of other cases like that where having checkuser would mean I could investigate these things myself and block underlying IP addresses or ranges to cut it off at the source rather than playing whack-a-mole for several hours while I wait for somebody else and they familiarise themselves with the context. Thankfully, that sort of thing doesn't come up every day, and when I wasn't dealing with that I'd be able to do other admin work as well as routine checkuser work like processing SPIs and advising on UTRS requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea of an admin – however experienced and well-intentioned – seeking to conduct checkuser investigations on-the-fly as you describe seems a bit risky. Would you be willing to suspend your admin activity entirely for a couple of months while you settle in to the CU role? - Pointillist (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't be launching investigations on the fly. Basically, the most important use I'd have for CU would be that when one of these nutters pops up with a string of obscene usernames or throwaway accounts, usually bouncing around a range or using proxies to avoid the account creation throttle, I'd be able to block the underlying IP address and any sleeper accounts before things get out of hand. And by "out of hand", I mean good editors getting so much abuse so quickly that they be come overwhelmed, and we risk them leaving if they see that the abuse can't be dealt with effectively (I know at least one editor who would have left had it not been for my efforts in stemming abuse they were subjected to). But that kind of thing doesn't come up every day, so at other times I'd help with more routine things like SPI and UTRS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Not Yet HJ is too quick with the block button. Functionaries need to be level headed. Jehochman Talk 10:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your comments, Jonathan, but I don't think I'm too quick to block. I do make a lot of blocks, and inevitably I make mistakes, but I think that the overwhelming majority of my blocks (last time I looked, I think I'd more blocks than all but about 20 admins) are in line with policy and practice and consensus (the three aren't always the same thing). I'm aware that some of my blocks have been controversial, but the same could be said of any active admin—the only guaranteed way to do nothing controversial is to do nothing—and the controversy is not necessarily indicative of an error. Blocks of established editors are almost always controversial and often result in lengthy noticeboard threads, but that doesn't mean it's never appropriate to block established editors. For my part, I always explain myself as best I can, and with noticeboard threads my personal policy is to offer my rationale and then leave the discussion to reach a conclusion, and I always accept the conclusion and do what I can to learn from it—regardless of the outcome. As for level-headedness, I think I'm generally a calm and rational admin and I try not to act on impulse or emotion. I know there's one particular block to which you took exception recently, but as I explained to you at the time I was not aware that you had declined to block the editor (otherwise I would have respected your decision), and I believed that the block was necessary based on the information I had at the time, as they appeared to be part of a coordinated harassment campaign. It later emerged that the matter had been discussed on a forum elsewhere on the web, and that the editor probably had nothing to do with the harassment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • CU and OS have the potential to really increase the drama around a dispute. What I'm objecting to is not your admin skills. You are really useful as an admin, but you are still a bit prone to hasty action. I'd like to see you wait a year or two before seeking these tools. If you are granted them, please remember what I've said here. Take it easy and be patient. The blow up over a faulty block is nothing compared to the blow up over an improper CU or OS action. Jehochman Talk 20:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Once again, without any qualms. What Jehochman sees as a lack of "level-headedness", I see as a surfeit of common sense, something all too lacking around here. I trust HJM, even if he sometimes is wrong, and disagrees with me. BMK (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We don't always agree, but his judgment is beyond reproach, as is his sensibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - HJ Mitchell is probably one of the most level-headed admins of all amongst those who operate in the trenches. One has to be bold to work in the front line and attract all the flak it gets for just doing one's job. HJ's reserarch into complex issues of COI and SPI are exasperatingly thorough and accurate. HJ does not need the CU tool - the CU tool needs Harry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have confidence in HJ Mitchell's integrity and good judgement, even if I sometimes don't agree with him. BethNaught (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Ched :  ?  18:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 39K admin actions with 13500 blocks ,14000 deletions and over 6500 protections his judgement and policy knowledge has been spoton and unquestionable shown over the large number of admin actions .User is one the most active admins in the project Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Harry has my trust, I'm sure he'll use CU appropriately. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Jehochman.--Catlemur (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pragmatic, sensible and experienced. can see big picture and can be trusted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All around, good experience in many different areas, and well-grounded in what Wikipedia is. I fear he's going to get a lot of flak for being outspoken and saying the hard truth (just as I did in my elections), but we need people who are outspoken, yet able to work as a team player. If there's still some uncertainty, perhaps an option is giving out either CU or OS now and seeing how it goes, without prejudice towards granting the other tool. --Rschen7754 04:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Outspoken, saying the hard truth? Perhaps, but we don't need functionaries who call other users "you fucking morons" (this was directed at 28 experienced contributors, among them several admins and an ex-arb). Kraxler (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, that was unacceptable, and I've apologised for it several times. I'm not going to try and justify it or pretend it didn't happen, but I can assure you it was an isolated incident—I was very upset because I felt a good editor was treated appallingly and that by valuing superficial politeness over getting the job done the community had done great harm to the project and driven away an editor who did valuable work. But that's about the only time I've been genuinely upset about something on Wikipedia, and it was because of the treatment of the other editor. I guess at the end of the day you know what you're getting with me—I'm efficient and I get the job done, and I think I'd do it well, but I'm not a machine, and I very occasionally do stupid things. But I promise I'll keep working on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Harry is a model admin in my mind, and I've no concerns he'll misuse the tool. — MusikAnimal talk 20:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - an excellent administrator; also per Kudpung. Go Phightins! 20:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – An excellent administrator and a trusted hardworking user. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, has overwhelmingly demonstrated the necessary trust for a role such as this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Stephen 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with no concerns, I believe HJ to be a trustworthy member of community. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately as an IP I cannot vote, but I wanted to leave a note that I would be opposing if I could. I had previously thought that based on a variety of reasons, not the least of which was this outburst but the recent extremely poor decision to block ProtonK that caused them to turn in his tools. The bottom line for me is that HJ Mitchell doesn't have the demeanor to be an admin anymore, let alone a Checkuser or Oversighter. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right on! The goal with experienced contributors is to help them come into compliance with policy, not to robotically kick them in the teeth (figuratively) block them for every "violation" until they quit in disgust. Of course, when one is a high volume admin, it is hard to spend the time necessary to do the patient work of mentoring. It's much quicker to just slap people around and demand compliance. Jehochman Talk 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever you do a lot of something (for example, I had a quick look at WP:ADMINSTATS, I've made 13,620 blocks—more than all but 19 admins, two of whom are bots), you will inevitably make a mistake or a questionable judgement call. But the number of those blocks that have resulted in noticeboard threads is probably well under one per cent and I could probably count on my fingers and toes the number that have been overturned by consensus. The consensus on this one was that Protonk's comment was a BLP violation but that the block was somewhat disproportionate. At the end of the day, I make mistakes and sometimes I can be blunt, but I acknowledge my fallibility and—most importantly—I get the job done. I use the tools a lot and I make the right call in the overwhelming majority of cases. Judging from the stats, that's what the functionary corps urgently needs—the vast majority of the work seems to be being done by a very small number of functionaries, with a larger number of moderately active functionaries picking up the slack and around half the current functionaries are inactive. It seems to me that adding another active functionary into the mix would make everyone's life easier (except possibly mine), and that's the only reason I'm applying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you shouldn't do a lot of something if the result is to drive off longstanding contributors who you lump in with the throw away accounts. Maybe you should just slow down and be nicer to the volunteers here, and let some other admins pick up the slack. How's Protonk doing? What have you done to repair the damage from that incident? Jehochman Talk 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman I really think you have said enough here. You do enough slapping around and demanding compliance yourself (diffs available). CU is a purely technical role and this application is not the RfA re-run that you are trying to turn it into. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, I will speak my mind, and remember that this discussion is about HJ Mitchell's fitness, not mine. Even if you have diffs about me, how is that relevant to the candidate? Please keep the discussion on topic. At least I have never called dozens of people "fucking morons". Jehochman Talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be arguing that vested contributors should get a pass on BLP. Pardon me, but I think some context is in order: for all my flaws I've never flippantly remarked on somebody's sex life on Wikipedia, much less done so while advocating ignoring BLP. We can argue about whether my response was the right one, but the noticeboard thread was quite clear that Protonk's comment was a BLP violation, and I honestly don't think that asking him nicely not to repeat it would have worked. I certainly did not treat him like a throwaway account—plenty of editors have been indef'd by other admins for comments like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am arguing that experienced contributors are valuable, and that you need to apply more effort and nuance in dealing with them rather than just going - block - block - block all the time. You seem to get a kick out of blocking people. You should not get higher ops until you develop better methods. If you had admitted that your high transaction volume was a concern and said you'd consider a different approach, rather than insisting how excellent you are, my criticism would not be so persistent or so harsh. Jehochman Talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nothing more than a personal attack, and it's completely inaccurate. If you think the best way to recognise the value of experienced contributors is to pour scorn on me while defending BLP violations or advocating on behalf of the likes of Wifione (and then make blocks like this) then I don't think this conversation is going to get us anywhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're violating Rule 9, but anyways, I brought the arbitration case that resulted in Wifione losing administrator rights and being banned, so I'm not sure what kind of logic you are using to suggest that I was "advocating on behalf of the likes of Wifione". I'm also not sure where I was "defending BLP violations". Remember, this conversation is about you, not me. It's an old trick to try to deflect legitimate criticism by attacking the critic. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's talk about me. But let's get specific, instead of generalised personal attacks. Let's have some diffs. Let's see if there are 40 logged actions (0.1% of the total) I've made that no reasonable admin would have made. If you can find 40 from the last 12 months, I'll resign my admin bit and go through an RfA if I want it back. I don't really care about functionary tools—I think I'd be an asset with them, but I'm not going to lose sleep because I had to wait a few hours for a checkuser or an oversighter—but I do take exception to your insinuations about the way I admin (especially given that I put more thought into blocking vandals than you put into the block I mentioned above), and I'd like you to supply evidence or retract them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want you to resign. I just want you to be a little more thoughtful before moving up to the next level of access. As you climb the ladder here, you are going to face more stressful situations and more challenging situations. Don't be in a rush. The exasperated diff that's been cited already related to that failed RFA is an example that you need more experience before being promoted. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Jehochman. I'd like to suggest that you reread the AN post for Protonk's block and topic ban, and the comments left on his talk page about it. You say above that the consensus was that the block was "somewhat disproportionate" when everyone is pretty much agreeing that the block was completely inappropriate (Two Examples). I appreciate that you're standing by your decision, but I hope that you are also considering the feedback that you were given. You blocked an admin in good standing with (as far as I can tell) no previous blocks, and he quit because of it. Did your block help improve the encyclopedia? Kaciemonster (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I could have taken a softer approach which might have produced a better result for all concerned, but that I couldn't have left the comment unchallenged—that seems to me to be consistent with the consensus at AN and with Risker's closing remarks. I'm not a robot, and I'm very sorry that it has had such a profound affect on Protonk's editing (it's one of the few things on Wikipedia I've lost sleep over). I met Protonk once and he struck me as a nice guy; if I meet him again, hopefully I'll buy him a pint and we'll look back at all this and laugh.

    More generally, we've established that I have a tendency to call a spade a spade (and yes, sometimes I call it a "fucking shovel"), that I cock up from time to time, and that some of my decisions are controversial (an occupational hazard in a topic area like gamergate or Israel-Palestine, though I'd be the first to admit that I don't always make the right call). I'll willingly concede that. On the other hand, I'm a very active admin and I like to think I do far more good than harm, I make the right call in the overwhelming majority of decisions, and I have the knowledge and ability to deal with really nasty people as well as to effectively get through the more routine stuff. I guess the question is what balance of thick skin and terseness, or of hard work and fallibility, we want in a functionary. That's up to ArbCom; I'm happy with whatever they decide, though obviously I wouldn't have put my hat in the ring if I didn't think I'd be effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No matter what level of access people achieve here, it is always possible to improve skills to do better job. There's a wide space between letting an edit go unremarked and blocking the user. The edit can be disputed, the user can be warned, or a noticeboard thread can be started. When dealing with experienced users, I strongly recommend choosing the most patient, thoughful approach. Whenever I haven't, the result was poor. Jehochman Talk 17:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - While he certainly gets a lot of criticism for his work on the front lines, there are only one or two legitimate instances where he made a mistake, and out of these I don't think any of them detract from his ability or qualification to use the tool properly. -Kharkiv07Talk 15:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose This is too recent for my comfort. I have no concerns about Mitchell's knowledge, sincerity, or even considered judgment and I think he is a fine editor and admin (and would perhaps be even a fine OS). But I do fear his instantaneous reaction, which with CU tools in hand, can have real-life consequences for editors. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of on the fence. While he has my full respect, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable with him as a functionary. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Grudging support, but be careful with the tools, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support - No worries here. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. This user is not fit to be a normal administrator, let alone a cu. Recent evidence includes an unbelievable ignorance of the difference between a suspected and a confirmed sockpuppet (unambiguously stated at the top of Template:Sockpuppet) as evidenced by his comment at the end of the "Question" section in this talkpage discussion. I have more examples if anyone needs them. Six.Mar (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User talk:Six.Mar was indef blocked on 13 March. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support--John Cline (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sometimes "you fucking morons" just has to be said. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Utterly unconcerned by a couple minor lapses in judgement amonst plethora of highly positive actions, particularly for a technical function. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have no reservations whatever in trusting HJ with either of these tools. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've always had sound advice when questions have been asked, support offered and honest and helpful responses given to requests so should be able to deal with requests in an appropriate manner. Amortias (T)(C) 18:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - For essentially the same reasons as BMK as well as what I consider "open mindedness" and flexibility on the part of the candidate. HJ is IMO an excellent writer as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per this quote from Mr. Mitchell under Oppose #9 at the Thomas.W RFA: "if people think it's more important for editors to be nice to each other on talk pages than to write the encyclopaedia (or in this case defend it from socks, trolls, vandals, and spammers), we'll just have to agree to disagree." I can be a little abrasive myself sometimes, I've been told, but I strongly believe the people who write this project are more important than the project itself, and I think these priorities are very important. Since Mr. Mitchell disagrees, I do not believe he should hold positions of heightened responsibility here. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. I certainly agree they're more important than the project. Than the encyclopaedia? Not in my opinion. I don't know if this website will be around forever, but I certainly hope the content we've written and curated will be around for many, many years. Not that we should be deliberately hostile and contrary, but we shouldn't avoid doing something that is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia just to spare editors' feelings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - checkusers need to be the most trusted of the most trusted and, with respect, that's not you. Some of the comments above give me pause. This situation where you were at least arguably much to quick to block a long-time user gives me pause. I'm not saying you're not a good admin or wouldn't do a good job - I'm just saying that checkusers really need to be people who are largely devoid of controversy and trusted by everyone and I don't think that's you. --B (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everybody makes mistakes. The sheer amount of work he does here means that you're more likely to find a mistake, not that he is unsuitable. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sure Harry at times can lose his shit but hey don't we all .... I personally believe he can be trusted with the tool. –Davey2010Talk 04:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - from my own observations. One outburst can be forgiven. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a couple of lapses in judgment are insufficient to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Pointillist (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NE Ent's comments:
    Summary: HJ's dedication to the project and willingness to take decisive action make him an overall asset to the project as admin. While these are necessary traits for a checkuser, they are not sufficient. The juxtaposition of policy and technology mean that checkusers operate outside of community scrutiny, false positives may occur, and falsely accused editors are likely to lash out angrily; therefore checkusers must also possess the humility and the ability to look beyond criticism to seriously reconsider whether they are mistaken after performing a checkuser action. has not demonstrated this qualities.
    Detailed rationale: Because of the inherent limitations of "checkuser" -- which doesn't actually check "users," but rather technical data associated with the communication between editors and Wikipedia's servers -- , and Wikimedia:Privacy_policy, checkuser is, as the page says, not "pixie dust." There is no policy requirement that different editors use different connections, devices, or logins on their local device. It is documented on wiki that there are multiple married editors; there is no policy against one logging out of Wikipedia on the browser and the other logging using the same browser process. As previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser/Archive_4#Checkuser_accuracy, checkuser accuracy is merely mythology. This is not to say it should abolished; that runs smack into another cherished Wikipedia mythology "Consensus is not voting!" (If we actually believed that we wouldn't care about socks, and we'd summarily delete every statement of the form "Support per Bob" or "Delete per nom."). Therefore we must balance damage due to both false negatives and false positives.
    The concern with HJ's documented actions isn't that he made a mistake, it's that he shows extreme reluctance to recognize that. He fails to recognize he put up a flawed candidate and blames others for that failure. While some editors were making good faith efforts to explain to the candidate on rfa talk page the shortcomings of their interaction, HJ did nothing to coach the candidate [3]. After the blowup [4] HJ took six days to return and apologize [5]. A week later he continued to blame the Rfa process. A brief review of the Protonk incident appears to show a similar pattern. The standard for admins is not perfect; this is appropriate as admining is mostly thankless scutwork and we're lucky to have volunteers to do it, and, importantly, admin action is subject to public scrutiny and misjudgements can be corrected. The lack of public oversight of checkuser activity means these safeguards are not in place, and therefore a much higher standard of conduct should be demonstrated before granting the checkuser WP:UAL. NE Ent 18:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: In the discussion above, some have argued HJ is responsible for Protonk's current withdraw from Wikipedia: this is not a fair criticism. Ultimately ever editor is responsible for their own behavior, and if Protonk has chosen to leave, that's on them, not HJ. There is an essay which I can't recall right now that points everyone eventually leaves and it's not a tragedy. NE Ent 18:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, leaving is the right of the individual and thus they have a responsibility for their actions. In some cases however, including this one, it is also a consequence of others that act as the catalyst for their departure. Your also right that someone departing the project is not in itself a tragedy, but leaving as a consequence of abusive and overzealousness of someone else's conduct is. The attitude that editors are expendable is a fallacy. Editors (and admins) are a resource and a limited and dwindling one at that. We shouldn't need to maintain vandals and trolls but we should make an effort to retain those in good standing and not allow them to be pushed out of the project because someone else has the ability to block them with no recourse. Giving HJ access to the checkuser tools will only be a catalyst for a lot more people leaving. He uses the block button with a vigilance, there is no question he will be just as aggressive with the use of the checkuser tool and as was put above there is no oversight nor checks and balances. Using that tool is more art than science and its notoriously unreliable. It should be eliminated as untrustworthy but it certainly should not be given to someone who has shown an extreme interpretation of policy. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NE Ent and I are almost agreeing on a current AE thread, which I think may be a first! ;) I won't address this point by point because it would add greatly to the length of this page and ultimately my interest in checkuser is more "by the way" than a burning desire. I'm not entirely sure why NE Ent thinks I lack the humility to admit my mistakes, when I think I'm generally quite open to the possibility that I've screwed something up, as can be seen from the rare occasion that one of my actions ends up on a noticeboard—I generally say my piece and then butt out and wait for consensus, and if it goes against me I do what I can to learn from it. I would argue that checkusers are probably more accountable than admins—their actions aren't subject to public scrutiny, I believe auditors, arbitrators, and other CUs actively patrol the logs and query any unusual actions, and then editors who feel there has been (mis|ab)use of the tool can complain to AUSC/ArbCom or the Ombudsman Commission. That seems a much more rigorous process than whoever happens to turn up at ANI on a given day, adn those bodies have the power to recommend summary removal of access, whereas to get rid of a bad admin, even one who has been abusing Wikipedia for their own ends for years, takes a long and messy arbitration case. I'm certainly aware of the limitations of checkuser; it would be lovely if we could use something like XFF to identify individuals rather than IP addresses—which are trivially changed or obfuscated. The WMF might put some resources into that at some point, but until then we have to make the most of what we've got. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the IP, a high volume of actions is not evidence of a lack of care. There are, for example, lots of admins who focus on deletion and who have deleted tens, even hundreds, of thousands of pages. I'm sure I might have declined some of those CSDs, or spent longer researching the subject, or closed an AfD differently, but if those admins consistently made the wrong call, there would be a lot of complaints and a lot of drama and eventually noticeboard threads, RfCs, and probably an arbitration case. I don't do much deletion, there are plenty of admins handling that who are probably better at it than I would be anyway; I focus mainly on vandalism and long-term abuse, which means I make a lot of blocks. Of the ~13k, there are probably barely 100 that have attracted much attention and I'd estimate fewer than a dozen have been overturned at a noticeboard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support absolutely. I do not support Jehochman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have studied this candidate greatly and I was leaning oppose based on Jehochman's summary, but I do not feel HJ will misuse this ability.--MONGO 02:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, maturity concerns, questionable blocks such as User:Markrandjoshi's (discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed_decision#One_more_remedy, among other venues). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know you and several other people disagree with that block, but nobody has presented me with a compelling case for unblocking, nor has anyone taken it to a noticeboard to get outside opinions, so "questionable" doesn't seem to be a fair description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The block was uncalled for, insensitive, and unfounded, in the first place. I still wonder what was the real motive for blocking of this particular (four years inactive) account. There was no pressing need to block Makrand, you knew that actions surrounding Wifione's case are widely watched and yet you decided to undertake this controversial and unnecessary step. Was it some kind of signal sent to people from Wikipediocracy (a 'comedy' site), who have defended Makrand? ... There's another thing related to the 'maturity concerns' mentioned in my oppose rationale. On another external site (Facebook) you bragged that you "played a major part" in the Wifione's arbitration case. Please note that I don't hound you on Internet, this caught my attention because other people (on Wikipediocracy, by coincidence) noticed. It is not true that you played a major part in it. I know it because I was the only Wikipedian who followed the case (for years). I know who were the people who played "major part" in that case and it was not you. A side remark/question: Wifione was a Wikipedian you trusted and respected, according to your own words. I don't understand why do you feel the need to tell others off-wiki about how important you was in catching and convicting of such a person, but I consider it immature and tactless. WP:CHK is a user right demanding very high level of maturity and responsibility and I simply don't see it here. Sorry. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're entitled to your opinion on the block, but your speculation about my motives and "maturity" based on a remark on Facebook is a gratuitous personal attack, and is the sort of thing I'd expect of a tabloid newspaper, not a Wikipedia admin such as yourself. I know you're bitter that it took so long to get rid of Wifione, and as somebody who only realised the extent of his abuse several years too late to deal with it effectively, I sympathise. But it seems contradictory to accuse me of both having an itchy trigger finger and of enabling Wifione's abuse. I'll sign off by noting that you still haven't taken the block to a noticeboard, and by opining that one of the biggest problems with the Wikipedia community is that we allow (and even encourage) personal attacks like this on volunteers who offer to take on more responsibility to help the project. It's entirely possible to think somebody unsuitable for such a position without attacking them, and if everyone did that we'd have more people willing to stand at RfA, more candidates in the ArbCom elections, and more people willing to take on tasks like these. A certain thickness of skin is required to be effective in such roles, but Wikipedia would be a nicer place if these proceedings were more inquisitorial and less adversarial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ///EuroCarGT 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CU rights should go to those that actually need it, its not a damn feather in the cap. He hasn't done anything remotely in the sections such as SPI where the tools are needed, he has no need for the tools..--Stemoc 22:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've worked with HJ on a number of pages now, never had any problems with him and he's always there for advice should I need it.--5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remember the fucking moron thing. When it happened, tt made me think about Howard Dean's scream. Sometimes passion can be awkward... Good luck! --Gaff (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support HJ is one of the more visible administrators we have and I've had a good impression of them each time I've seen their involvement in something. Mkdwtalk 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose False positives happen. Not often, but they happen. Users, especially well-established users, when accused of sock-puppetry based only on evidence they have no access to (CU evidence) often go BALLISTIC. Even after they're unblocked and apologized to, they will curse you, they will make open threats, they will swear revenge, they will post on multiple pages basically demanding your incompetent head on the platter. Editors with CU permissions must be able to de-escalate such situations (tip: that's not done by reblocking the user), apologize profusely and repeatedly, and basically take the beating. Ask DQ, he'll tell you. I don't think HJ Mitchell is capable of that, given his history of self-control issues and extreme reluctance to admit when he makes a mistake, as noted above. It wouldn't be in our best interest to give him CU, nor would it be in HJ Mitchell's best interest to receive CU. He's a good editor, don't do this to him. Don't give him CU. 78.22.109.8 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jehochman. Rider ranger47 Talk 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while acknowledging the reservations of the above, and also that I am myself one of the editors who he has blocked over the years. I wonder if there have been any admins over the years who might not have made what some might call a bad block, which could have, at least theoretically, led to the retirement of a good editor. That isn't something we want, of course. At the same time, people too inclined to avoid that situation might, conceivably, not block a potentially bad editor, and thus possibly contribute to any bad actions they might take which could have been avoided. I personally think Harry is probably responsible enough to realize that in this role his actions will have a potentially bigger impact than his admin role does, and that he will think of that when announcing results. That's good enough for me. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support HJ is one of few admins I trust to do the job and do it well. Atsme☯Consult 23:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per poor judgement and excessive blocking 72.89.122.88 (talk)
  • Weak support Jianhui67 T★C 10:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • HJ has excellent judgment; I have no concerns whatsoever. Acalamari 20:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support - No concerns here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Far too willing to block first and ask questions later. Little indication that this practice will change in the future, given that the contemplative and remorseful comments from Mitchell about my block came before his equally hasty, ill advised and unnecessary block of another admin in good standing. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V (CU)

[edit]

Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hello, I’m Mike V and I’m applying for the checkuser and oversight permissions. I’m active as a member of the OTRS team, a clerk for SPI, a member of the account creation team, as well as serving as an election commissioner for the 2014 arbitration election. In my role as a SPI clerk and as a commissioner, I’ve gained a strong familiarity with the duties of a checkuser and the responsibilities of handling the data appropriately. I’m requesting access to the checkuser permission so that I can assist further with the SPI case load, process checkuser requests for account creation, and lend a hand on UTRS. Through my on-wiki work and as an OTRS volunteer, I often encounter situations where having access to the oversight tools would be beneficial. I’m often readily available through IRC, which will allow me to respond to community requests quickly. Thank you for your consideration.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I am very active as an SPI clerk and work with a number of checkusers to handle the investigations. As a former election commissioner I feel very comfortable interpreting the technical data one would encounter as a checkuser.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Professionally I have experience in collecting, interpreting, and presenting data.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I was an election commissioner for the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections on the English Wikipedia. Through this role I had access to checkuser-like data of the voters. I am a member of the OTRS team and currently have access to info-en (full), photosubmissions, permissions, and sister projects (Commons).
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
I would direct the individual to the Audit Subcommittee, whose remit includes investigating abuse of the checkuser tool.
The checkuser-l list is often used to notify other checkusers about cross-wiki concerns that have been identified. This might include discovering a nest of spambots, cross-wiki vandalism, informing other checkusers about discovered accounts of a prolific sock user, etc.
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like almost all users, there’s been a time where I have disagreed with someone either through my work as an editor or as an administrator. In those situations it’s important to keep a level head and talk things out to get a better understanding of their perspective. I try my best to be willing to reconsider your position and find some neutral ground where possible. One thing that I have learned is that it’s important to keep the broader picture in sight. It’s not worth picking at the finer details if the general issues have been resolved.
  • How willing are you to block a user unilaterally (CU block)? With the advent of "Wi-Fi" and shared IPs would you consider whether or not the IP address was shared before making a decision? 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs)
Well, the answer is it depends. :) I would evaluate the technical data available between the accounts and consider the amount of overlap. For example, if there’s only a small handful of edits at a public library, I would be more willing to attribute that to the users just living in the same area. However, if there are a vast amount of edits coming from the same ISP, with no overlapping edits, and a similar topic of interest, that’s something of concern. It’s important to remember that the checkuser results aren’t binary and involve a fair amount of interpretation. If I wasn't 100% confident I could give a likely or possible result or consult a more experienced checkuser for a second opinion.
  • How much faith do you have in the "Duck Test" theory? With millions of registered editors, how would you to assume a match if you discover 2 different editors share topic interests? 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs)
Personally, I reserve the “duck test” for only a few cases. This is usually for our most prolific sockpuppeteers whose actions are consistent and obvious. A rule of thumb I use, if I were to show these edits to someone who has never edited Wikipedia before, would they be willing to wager a bet that they are the same individual? If it’s not crystal clear, then it wouldn’t hurt to request for additional evidence and/or further explanation.
  • What is your stance on the tool "not being pixie dust" or "for fishing"? Many editors often question the tool's accuracy — what red flags do you look for? 66.87.116.185 (talk • contribs)
I see “checkuser is not pixie dust” and “checkuser is not for fishing” as two distinct things. The former refers to the fact that checkuser evidence is not the be-all and end-all to closing a case. It’s just additional evidence that can be coupled with the behavioral evidence. The latter refers to how the checkuser tool cannot be used to investigate unsubstantiated hunches. I recognize that the technical data can be manipulated to make it look like multiple accounts are unrelated. An obvious cases would be if both accounts were using proxies, tor exit nodes, web hosts, etc. Depending on the circumstances I might call it inconclusive and encourage the closing clerk/admin to rely on the behavioral evidence, while noting the technical aspects involved. There are a number of other points to consider, but I would prefer not to provide an extensive list on how to defeat the checkuser tool.
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oversight

[edit]
Action completed in March 2015. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bbb23 (OS)

[edit]

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • I am applying for both the checkuser and the oversight tools. My principal interest is in the checkuser tool. I don’t think I’ll use the oversight tool much, but that could change over time. Obviously, I would respond to an editor who makes a request to me for suppression.
  • My interest in the CU tool stems from my experience as an SPI clerk and my overall interest in understanding how a checkuser is actually performed. I believe I have the requisite experience as an active clerk to use the tool and to use it prudently. CUs have discretion as to when to perform a checkuser, and I would approach the tool, as I do with any new tool, cautiously at the beginning as I learn the ropes,seeking guidance, as necessary, from more experienced checkusers.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As an administrator doing rev/deletes, which I don't even do that often.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    None except one small thing that would breach my personal privacy. Wouldn't change the answer much, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No to all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short answer is I'd probably use (a) as much as possible as it's safer. With respect to (b), the policy links "libelous" to our article on Defamation. As the article notes, libel law depends on the jurisdiction. I believe generally we apply American law. Nonetheless, it still requires a legal analysis (another reason to stick with (a) and let a Foundation lawyer decide), but if I were going to apply (b), the libel would have to be blatant. Thus, if someone said that x (a living person) is a criminal and killed his mother a year go, that to me is blatant. Truth, of course, is a defense to libel, but I wouldn't feel comfortable deciding whether there was a defense but would "err" on the side of suppressing the material. Also, as in probably all suppressions initially, I'd consult with at least one other OS before making a decision if I felt the decision was not obvious. My apologies for the long-winded answer, but I've never thought about this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Support as above. BMK (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Ched :  ?  18:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per "I don’t think I’ll use the oversight tool much". NE Ent 23:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Addressing Ponyo's comment below): Wikipedia:CheckUser says the permission is to be granted "exceedingly rarely." If you wish to bundle the rights you raise the appropriate RFC. Current CUs Coren, Jpgordon, Materialscientist, Reaper Eternal, Tiptoety, Versageek don't have the OS privilege so apparently it's possible to function without it. NE Ent 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • At no point in my comment below did I write or even imply that it's not "possible to function without it" and have no intention of suggesting the two be bundled in the future. I specifically noted my personal experience with both set of tools and my suggestion to Bbb23 that if he thought his experience would be similar to mine to consider requesting both permissions as opposed to waiting a year (or more) for the next appointments. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to only grant CU now, without prejudice to granting OS at a later date, per NE Ent and because CU is not easy to learn, and neither is using all the modes of communication that come with it (CU wiki, CU-l...) --Rschen7754 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'd like to note that I actually encouraged Bbb23 to apply for OS if he was going to seek CU permissions. I've found it very helpful in my CU work to have the Oversight permissions as there are instances where OS is necessary when dealing with some of our more disruptive and abusive LTA sock accounts. Perhaps he would not use it daily, however I have no doubt when oversight would be used it would be done thoughtfully and completely within policy in an effort to protect the project and its editors; in other words, in the same manner that he conducts himself as an admin. I would hate for my advice to Bbb23 to somehow be used against him and fully support his candidacy for both roles.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--John Cline (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CU; oppose oversight per NE Ent and Rschen7754. It doesn't seem like oversight is really needed and that Bbb23 could seek help oversighting from another oversighter. Bbb23 has demonstrated increasingly good judgement overall, and their experience at SPI further supports the need and ability to use CU wisely.- MrX 12:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NE Ent. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For some types of SPI having access to both suppressed material and CU tools makes it easier to come to a conclusion. Plus, when dealing with vandals the ability to suppress material might come in handy on some occasions when speed of zapping edits is important. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's no need for the tool here. It looks like Bbb23 didn't even know OS existed prior to his application for CU, as shown by his answers, and just thought "might as well get this hat while I'm finally getting my CU". And yes, it seems giving him CU will be OK though I'm always wary of people who want advanced permissions because they're curious how they work, but OS? He recognises the obvious need for acting swiftly and erring on the side of suppressing yet claims he'll be consulting his actions with other oversighters before performing them which doesn't even make sense logically. Plus, OS has no backlogs, we don't need new oversighters. That means we can apply higher standards to the candidates than we would've otherwise. Bbb23 doesn't meet these high standards, and openly admits he rarely even uses revdel. Sorry, but not this time. Weak support for CU, strong oppose to OS from me. 78.22.109.8 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on comments by Ponyo above. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; oh my, yes! Bbb23 is one of the most excellent administrators we have, they have my full trust and support after seeing many excellent judgment calls. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (OS)

[edit]

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hi all, I'm Callanecc and I'm applying for the Oversight tool (that is, to retain it after my term on AUSC). I've been an admin for around a year and an OTRS agent since before then. I am currently serving as a community appointee on the Audit Subcommittee (so have used both CheckUser and Oversight) through which I've developed a reasonably in depth knowledge of the global and local policies governing the use of the tools. As I'm online when a number of other Oversighters aren't (due to my timezone) I've come across a number of requests (through OTRS) which are simple and relatively uncontroversial (like editing logged out and self-disclosures by minors) and have been able to deal with them straight away. I also lurk in the -revdel and -admins IRC channels so am sometimes around when requests which need to be oversighted come in. I've made a number of Oversight requests, including since I've had the permission for a second opinion, and from memory none of them has been declined.
Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
I've just given quick responses to these for now, I'll come back to them later and clean up my responses and provide more info as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I think I've answered this in my nomination statement so I won't repeat myself. Happy to give some more info if people would like it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    The main off-wiki experience I have here is keeping information confidential and needing to decide whether certain pieces of information need to be kept confidential according to certain criteria (the comparison being whether to suppress something or not). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I have both CU and OS on enwiki as a community member of AUSC, none of the other permissions on other projects. On OTRS, I have access to the Commons, Info-en (f), Permissions, Wikidata (and oversight-en-wp) queues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've changed my view on this since you asked when I nominated for the AUSC, so I'll copy my answer there to here:
I think it's important to consider that the local WP:OS policy is slightly more restrictive as it asks OSers to consider whether RevDel is more appropriate rather than it just being approved for use. The first phrase (a) seems to be there to allow OSers to act on advice of the counsel (perhaps so they can do it themselves or request a community OS to do it for them). The second phrase (b) states that it must be clear that the information is (potentially) libelous and that there is no reason to keep the revision available to admins (since it would meet RevDel criteria). An example I could think of (regarding a reason to keep the edit just RevDel'd) would be if a sockpuppeteer continues to insert the same information which allows their socks to be easily identified. It makes sense to keep the master's edits viewable to admins (and non-OS CUs) so that they can identify socks. Another reason could be revisions on a widely used discussion board or talk page (where a large number of revisions would need to be hidden) where OS would disrupt editors' ability to follow discussions and look up past revisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

GB fan (OS)

[edit]

GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hello, I’m GB fan and I am applying to become an Oversighter. I have served the community as an Administrator since 2009 and am a OTRS volunteer. I have experience dealing with privacy and sensitive related matters. As a former member of the US military I routinely handled private information. I routinely Rev Del information when appropriate and pass along those items that require suppression, all of which have been suppressed. I believe that these qualities would be helpful in the role of an Oversighter.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have been an Admin since 2009 and use Revision Deletion on a regular basis. No one has ever questioned my use of the tool. I have contacted the oversight team in the past about problems edits, in each instance the revisions were suppressed by the oversight team.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    In my current and previous job, I have/had access to personal information that would be oversightable if entered into Wikipedia, including personally identifiable information and medical data.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not hold any advanced permissions other than administrator on this Wikipedia. I do have OTRS permissions in the info and permissions ques.
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first part is simple and does not require much judgement, if the Wikimedia Foundation Counsel determines that edits must be removed to reduce liability to the Foundation it is oversighted. The second part is where judgement comes in. First we would need to determine if the edit is a clear case of potential libel. If it is, then the next section is there some reason for admins to have access to it? Was it initially missed and many edits would need to be suppressed to clear it out of the history? Is there sockpuppetry going on where the writing style/content would be useful to help identify future sockpuppets? To sum it up, the edit would have to by clear that it is potentially libelous and there is no editorial reason to keep it. This would make most things ineligible for for oversight under this criterion. -- GB fan 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a prolific content creator, but have quite a bit of experience as an administrator discussing why articles were deleted and working towards an agreement. It does not not always work that you can come to an agreement because sometimes people get entrenched in their opinions and can not be swayed. I have been accused of entrenched in my opinion. I realize it can happen and try to step back when it looks like I am doing that. It is important to listen to all opinions. No one person can ever have the best solution since everyone looks at things differently. The best solution is usually a hybrid of the ideas from multiple people. -- GB fan 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

HJ Mitchell (OS)

[edit]

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Of the two functionary positions, oversight is the one I am most interested in due to the urgency involved—most oversight-grade material has the potential to cause serious harm, so the sooner it's removed the better. I've noticed some delays in processing oversight requests, so I'd like to help by making sure that harmful material is removed as quickly as possible, while deferring borderline cases for discussion.
I feel I am well-placed to help here. Of necessity, given the nature of my admin work, I am one of the most prolific users of revision deletion and I frequently request the assistance of the oversight team. I'm used to getting RevDel requests by email (and to saying "no" and explaining the criteria if appropriate) and I've had OTRS access for several years. While I believe I would make good and efficient use of the checkuser tools, whether separately or in conjunction with oversight, the latter would fit seamlessly into my admin and OTRS work. Of course, oversight also comes with access to all manner of sensitive material, which is why it's given out carefully, but I believe I've proven over the years that I can handle these things with the requisite discretion.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've been an admin for nearly five years,and I've used RevDel many, many times. I take a narrower interpretation of the criteria than some admins, but I'm still one of the more prolific users of it. I frequently email the oversight team to request suppression of harmful material that I've come across or been alerted to. I often get requests for RevDel by email and I already have OTRS access so oversight fits in quite nicely with those roles.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Technical expertise relevant to oversight? Not much. But, unlike checkuser, oversight doesn't require any real technical expertise—as I understand it, it's an extra box that can be ticked in the revision deletion interface (and a couple of other boxes in other places) and another OTRS queue. The reason it's restricted is the sensitivity of the information oversighters deal with. As mentioned under my CU candidacy, I have experience of handling private information in "real life", and I've signed NDAs in the past. I hope I've proven my discretion through my admin work; protecting privacy is something I take extremely seriously, and is the reason I'm applying for oversight permissions.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    As above, no advanced permissions but I'm an admin on Commons. I have access to the WMUK, info-en (full), Commons, permissions, photosubmission, and Wiki Loves Monuments queues.
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means that oversighters are expected to exercise judgement. Obviously if the WMF's lawyers advise that something should be suppressed, there would need to be an extraordinary reason for it not to be suppressed. The second clause requires the oversighter to be satisfied that the material is indeed libellous (in effect, that the statement in question could cause the subject harm)—so juvenile name-calling and run-of-the-mill vandalism of the sort we all see every day would not qualify—and that there is no good reason to keep it. A good reason to keep it (or to decline to upgrade RevDel to suppression) might be that the claim is widely repeated outside of Wikipedia to the extent that somebody stumbling across the diff would probably have heard the claim before, or that it appears in so many revisions of a busy page (like ANI, for example) that removing it would severely affect the page history or risk triggering the Streisand effect. For an example of the sort of libel that's worthy of suppression, a few months ago I came across an editor repeatedly adding a claim that a television presenter had been involved in a sexual abuse scandal in an earlier career; the claim was unsourced and a quick Google search didn't bear it out, so I requested suppression (which was granted).
  • Do you believe that your role as the arbitration reporter for the Signpost will cause any conflicts of interest with serving as an oversighter? --Rschen7754 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a word: nah. To elaborate slightly, anything that might come to my knowledge in my functionary capacity would have no business being published in the Signpost, and I'm quite sure the editors-in-chief wouldn't allow it (the same would apply for confidential or private information that came into my possession as an admin). They also scrutinise the article for impartiality prior to publication. I see my role with the Signpost as shedding more light on ArbCom's work; the exposés and investigative journalism I leave to those who have the interest and the talent for it. Of necessity, most active admins wear multiple hats; it's not a problem—we just have to remember which hat we're wearing at any given time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assume you received a valid request for oversight for BLP violation; after oversighting the edit, which action, if any, would you take vis-à-vis the editor who added the material? NE Ent 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would depend on the nature of the edit and of the editor. A throwaway account created to attack a BLP subject should be indef'd and forgotten; an experienced editor who added it in good faith, unaware that they'd just stuck their hand in a hornets' nest, would likely be quite upset that their edit was oversighted (suppressed) and should be given informal advice. Closer to the middle of the spectrum is a judgement call, but I'd only block if there was malice aforethought or there was no other way to get the editor to stop posting it. I did once block an editor for repeatedly drawing attention to oversighted material (among other things by starting threads challenging the oversight on every noticeboard they could find) and unblocked them a few days later when they agreed to stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
  • Oppose. HJ is too quick with the block button. Functionaries need to be exceptionally level headed. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (added)[reply]
  • I'm struggling with this one. On the one hand, HJ's throughput is huge, and his administrative decisions are, while sometimes arguable, rarely completely out to lunch. The OS team could definitely use someone who's able to regularly dedicate large amounts of time to admin/OS work and whose judgments are usually well within the bounds of reason. On the other hand, while his decisions are rarely off-kilter, his interactions sometimes are. Especially in projectspace areas, at times we see HJ being accusatory, biting, dismissive, or generally just inflammatory. That's not terribly uncommon for Wikipedians in general, but my concern is this: a well-done oversight is one that goes mostly (or, ideally, completely) unnoticed, even in heated circumstances. Oversighters deal regularly with angry, upset, and legally-threatening people. We might have to suppress a hundred edits at once on ANI or Jimbo's talk. We get blunt questions demanding we justify why X action was taken, sometimes followed by accusations of tool misuse when our answers don't please the asker. Part of our job is to de-escalate those public situations to keep them from becoming spectacles that draw more attention to the thing we were trying to suppress; another part is dealing sensitively with private correspondents who may be overly emotional, doggedly demanding, or just not very likeable. We expect functionaries to be able to discuss borderline cases among themselves calmly and productively, rather than by shouting or accusing. Right now, based on activity like those diffs, I'm not entirely sure HJ is capable of consistently doing those all things. Most of the time? Sure. And for most tasks Wikipedians do, "most of the time" is ok. But I'm not sure I'm convinced that "most of the time" cuts it in a job where we're juggling content that affects people's real lives, and I can't find anything in his statements here that indicates that he recognizes that sensitivity, or at least tact, needs to be an "all the time" thing. It could very well be that Oversighter HJ wouldn't have the slightest problem with that...but I guess I'm looking for some explicit assurance that the oversight team would be getting the 100% tactful HJ rather than the 80%-tact-except-when-annoyed-at-which-point-all-bets-are-off one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair comment. I could argue on the specifics of the diffs—certainly I don't feel the the first one was "accusatory"; I was dealing with an editor who was being extremely disingenuous and a less patient admin might have blocked, (in fact one later did for a similar incident) so I felt that the tone was appropriate to get them to stop. I'm loathe to block somebody if something else might work, and sometimes that something else is "a robust verbal chastisement"; in situations like that, a friendly chat simply wouldn't adequately get the message across. But to your general point, yes, sometimes I can be rather strident, sometimes perhaps too much or unnecessarily so, but (with some exceptions) I generally know when stridency is appropriate. I certainly think I know when to tone it down it down, for example when responding to emails on OTRS or doing arbitration enforcement work, and would do so when acting as a functionary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Level-headed and significantly prone to random acts of good judgment, which are precisely what we need in this sort of position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. BMK (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. Also, in my opinion, Fluffernutter's diffs show HJ Mitchell's common sense and robustness more than any impropriety. BethNaught (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Ched :  ?  18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above and User has done over 14000 Deletions and over 1300 Revision Deletions some of which may need to be Oversighted Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can be a little brusque sometimes when dealing with problematic users. It hasn't hampered my ability to be an effective member of the oversight team for the past four years. I have every confidence that Harry would ba a positive addition to the functionaries, and our workload would be automatically reduced if he were able to oversight all the stuff he currently refers to us. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Jehochman.--Catlemur (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've seen a couple of cases people complaining about Oversighters not being quick enough to get rid of private material, and experienced the long wait the one time I sent in a request for oversight. The Oversight team requires a heavily active admin like Harry, who will be able to quickly respond to requests. Doesnt seem to have done anything too dodgy in the grand scheme of things. Bosstopher (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support will be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - We don't need functionaries who call other users "you fucking morons" (this was directed at 28 experienced contributors, among them several admins and an ex-arb). Kraxler (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – An excellent administrator and a trusted hardworking user. CT Cooper · talk 22:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support continues; however, I feel that the possible conflict of interest may need more exploring (I can think of one case where seeing CU/OS information would probably have changed one's impression of how it was handled, though I obviously won't say which one). I certainly understand Kraxler's concerns, but for me this seems to be a one-off incident (though of course once on the functionary side of things, that would be a serious issue). --Rschen7754 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose due to concerns about tact. Not good when people are intimidated out of approaching functionaries on the site, especially when concerns involve real-life impacts. That said, very much appreciate the ongoing, dedicated efforts at vandal fighting to keep things civilized. --Djembayz (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this would be an oppose, see comments on CU request. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil (OS)

[edit]

Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
My username is “Lankiveil”, and I am a long term contributor to the English Wikipedia, with over 20,000 edits, the administrator flag since 2008, a clean block log, service as an ArbCom clerk, and being in my fourth term on the management committee of my local Wikimedia chapter. I also ran for the Oversight position in the 2010 elections, receiving a support rate in excess of 65%, the highest of any candidate, but also insufficient under the rules of the election to be appointed.
I believe that as a longstanding Wikipedian who has managed to avoid much in the way of drama over my ten years on the project, I would make an excellent addition to the Oversight team. I see myself as a “safe pair of hands”, who can be trusted to deal with sensitive situations in a discreet and common sense manner. My day job involves access to sensitive information, and I am well aware of good practice when it comes to handling private and confidential information.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I've been an administrator since 2008, and have focused a fair bit on deletion and BLP issues (including dropping by WP:BLPN regularly). I am also an OTRS agent.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Wiki experience aside, I've held jobs in the real world as a paymaster for large organisations, where I had access to sensitive personal information. I know how to handle confidential data and relevant best practice in the field.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    No, although for what it's worth I have rollback on Commons.
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, I would imagine that requests to oversight something that come from WMF legal would be actioned by WMF employees as office actions, rather than thrown to volunteer oversighters to look at. Obviously anything that a qualified legal expert says has to go, has to go, so I don’t have a problem with that.
To answer (b), my view is that Oversight should only be used in cases where plain old revision deletion isn’t good enough. As far as libel goes, that means its use should be restricted to cases so egregious that even leaving it visible to the ~1400 administrator accounts would be problematic. Much libel that isn’t so terrible as to warrant being sent down the oversight memory hole is probably still an excellent candidate for revision deletion.
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding trite, Wikipedia is a phenomenally diverse workplace, and sticking around for any length of time, particularly for people with an interest in the administrative side of the project, pretty much requires one to be able to empathise with people with different situations from one’s own. In particular, one potentially hot area that I have found myself engaged in recently is closing AFD discussions that nobody else will bring the proverbial bargepole near; I won’t say my calls haven’t been challenged from time to time, but I think I’ve been able to act in an even handed and understanding manner that has kept any disagreements from getting personal.
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Keilana (OS)

[edit]

Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hi, I’m Emily (aka Keilana), and I’m applying for oversight. I’ve been an admin since November 2007 and have worked in a bunch of areas, lately medicine. I’ve got 8 FAs and a handful of other recognized content. I consider myself primarily a content admin. I am experienced with policy and the use of tools.


Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    I have been an administrator for almost 8 years, and have a good knowledge of how to use the RevDel tool and of all the relevant policies. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I don't have much off-wiki expertise but I imagine it's not terribly different to using RevDel. I do have extensive real-life experience handling private information with regards to health care records. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not have advanced permissions but I do have OTRS access to info-en. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part A is pretty clear cut - if WMF counsel advises the OS team that an edit should legally be removed, that's a valid reason to oversight something. Part B covers blatant libel, and here the local OS policy comes into play - the "Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism for which removal by normal administrative measures is insufficient. " part in particular. The question is whether or not something can be merely revision deleted, i.e., should all admins have access to the information. It's also a situation where I'd try to consult a more experienced oversighter for a second opinion, at least the first few times. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was extensively involved in closing two of the most contentious RFCs ever, the Jerusalem RfC and Muhammad images RfC, which required collaboration with two other admins each time. We discussed extensively and came to a consensus though we did not initially come from the same perspective. It was a very valuable experience and I'm still proud of the result. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While your content work is extensive, your use of administrative tools is somewhat more limited; your last five logged administrative actions date back to November 2014. Part of the reason the OS team is looking for more personpower is that many of our current team members perform very few suppressions. If you become an oversighter, do you see yourself actively using the tool, including regularly responding to OTRS queue requests and handling requests made via IRC or private email, or do you see yourself using it more in a "if I happen to come across something that needs to be suppressed, I'll use my tools to handle it" style? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see myself using the OS tools pretty actively, especially since I tend to be more responsive to emails (thanks, Pavlov). There is also more urgency with OS requests that there generally isn't with admin work. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a past ArbCom election where you were a candidate, concerns were raised regarding your support of Jack Merridew, a since community-banned editor. (Disclaimer: I certainly don't endorse everything that was said in the guide I linked). Looking back at that two years later, what are your thoughts on matters like this? --Rschen7754 03:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's particularly relevant to oversight privileges. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, perhaps I will rephrase this then: a well-established content editor makes posts that have to be oversighted. They keep doing it again after being told not to. How do you handle this? --Rschen7754 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It depends. If I'm involved in some non-admin/OS way or know I'm biased, I won't act. There are enough people on the OS team to make a decision in that case. If I'm not involved/biased, then I'd consider that grounds for a block, since it's disruptive to the project to keep making oversightable edits. It may be because it's past 2 AM here and I've been sciencing all day, but I can't think of a situation where this has actually happened. Keilana|Parlez ici 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What relevance does the number of FAs you've been recognized for have to do with whether you should be granted Oversight user access level? NE Ent 17:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Kelapstick (OS)

[edit]

Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • I wish to put myself forth for Oversight permission, I have been an active editor here since 2007, and an administrator since 2012. Since being an administrator I have completed the typical administrative duties, and think I could help out additionally with Oversight. I have OTRS access to en-info and permissions (although admittedly I am less active there than I would like to be). I do know my way around Wikipedia policies, and believe that with the Oversight flag I would be able to help out in that regard.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    As an administrator I am familiar with deletion of material. This includes revision deletion prior to my requesting material be removed by oversight.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I don't know of any off-wiki technical experience that would be helpful with oversight. Most of the sensitive information I deal with off-wiki is not personal in nature, rather financial (for publicly traded companies), so I have had to sign off on confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in past.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I do not hold any advanced permissions, but I have access to permissions and info-en queue on OTRS.
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For part A, as council would be involved, it would have potential to harm the foundation legally (for example, there would be potential for a lawsuit). It is thus a formal request to remove in order to prevent harm to the foundation. For part B, an oversighter would have to determine on his or her own if suppression was a better course of action than reverting or revision deletion. For example if someone put into someone's article This person is a bit of an arse hole would be fine with garden variety reverting, where as one that says This person does naughty things to animals in his van down by the river would be better off suppressed. In the latter example it is pretty clear cut there is no editorial reason to keep that sort of revision, as (at best) it is outright vandalism. I understand that these are rather simplistic examples, so let me know if you want expansion on anything.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, all of Wikipedia is based on collaboration and consensus, including all the articles I have taken part in writing and all the discussions that I have taken part in. I am sure (and thankful) that not everyone shares my opinions and philosophies, and I really do take notice of how I have changed over the last eight years since I started editing here. Since we are given such a diverse group of people to work with here, it has really opened my eyes (and mind) to a lot around the world. Since I started editing I have lived/worked in four countries (including my own), and I believe that my editing and interactions here helped me adapt a lot easier.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the reason for the revdel on Zaha Hadid [6]? NE Ent 18:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.

Mike V (OS)

[edit]

Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hello, I’m Mike V and I’m applying for the checkuser and oversight permissions. I’m active as a member of the OTRS team, a clerk for SPI, a member of the account creation team, as well as serving as an election commissioner for the 2014 arbitration election. In my role as a SPI clerk and as a commissioner, I’ve gained a strong familiarity with the duties of a checkuser and the responsibilities of handling the data appropriately. I’m requesting access to the checkuser permission so that I can assist further with the SPI case load, process checkuser requests for account creation, and lend a hand on UTRS. Through my on-wiki work and as an OTRS volunteer, I often encounter situations where having access to the oversight tools would be beneficial. I’m often readily available through IRC, which will allow me to respond to community requests quickly. Thank you for your consideration.
Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    In a number of situations I have contacted the oversight team to request content suppression. I have experience using the revision deletion tool and responding to deletion requests privately and through the IRC channel.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    Through both past and present employment, I have been entrusted with access to a database of sensitive information. I have also responded to situations where a swift and discreet response is necessary.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    I was an election commissioner for the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections on the English Wikipedia. Through this role I had access to checkuser-like data of the voters. I am a member of the OTRS team and currently have access to info-en (full), photosubmissions, permissions, and sister projects (Commons).
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part A allows the community to oversight material when WMF legal has reason to believe that certain material within the encyclopedia is harmful to an individual or organization and should not be visible to the community or its readers. For instance, this may occur when the subject or their representative contacts the Foundation directly to request removal of the content. In regards to point B, this allows one to oversight the material if they reasonably believe the offending content is unsupported and would cause harm by allowing it to persist.
If there was a parameter, yes. I would provide an explanation that details how the account is related to the master account. This would include a link to the sockpuppetry case which shows the established behavior. In addition, I'd provide diffs that illustrates the same behavior so that the connection is clear to all.
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
Hi SebastianHelm, I’m sorry that my block may have come off as obscure. It appears you left your first message after I stepped away from Wikipedia for the night and left your second message before I started the next day. (1) When I read your second message it seemed to me that you were satisfied with my blocking rationale after comparing the user’s contributions to those of the master account. I’m always willing to elaborate on my SPI blocking rationale and have done so when requested. (For example: 2, 3, 4) I try my best to be as transparent as possible, but if my actions are ever unclear I would be more than happy to elaborate. Best, Mike V • Talk 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe that you would have elaborated, had I not cancelled that request, which is one reason why my oppose was only weak. My concern was only with your original action, and the fact that you didn't reply to my request for using evidence on your talk page. But let's discuss that on your talk page, so we can keep that topic in one place. — Sebastian 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) amended 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones (OS)

[edit]

Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement
  • Hi, I'm Ronhjones, and I'm applying for the oversight user-right. I have been editing on Wikipedia/Wikimedia for almost 7 years, and I have been an en-Wiki admin for just over 5 years, a commons admin for 2 years and an OTRS volunteer for 3 years. I feel that I have the necessary judgement and experience to help with oversight. I am very usually available most week day evenings (in UK).


Standard questions for all candidates
[edit]
  1. Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
    There have been a few occasions, when I have used revision deletion to hide privacy-related edits, and I have then passed them to the Oversighters for suppression.
  2. Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
    I don't think that there is much technical expertise required here for oversight (unlike checkuser). As for privacy, then as someone who makes custom chemicals to other companies recipes (under a non-disclosure agreement), the need for privacy is well exercised, plus the work at OTRS also have a strong privacy requirement.
  3. Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
    Nothing advanced, although also a admin on commons, and on OTRS - Queues: Commons, info-en (f), Permissions, Photosubmission.
Questions for this candidate
[edit]
  • The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is Item No. 2 of the OS policy - which is preceded by "In the following cases, revision and/or log suppression may be used when justified by the circumstances. However, consideration should be given to whether administrative revision deletion is an adequate response". Thus one should look at the request and decide if suppression or oversight is the best solution. I would hope that in case (a) that the Wikimedia Foundation counsel would know exactly what was required and any action from myself would just be a "rubber stamp", but we still need to evaluate first. As for (b) then one has to make the decision to suppress RevDel or oversight on one's own - a bit of name calling would go for suppression RevDel, but if someone starts making invalid criminal accusations then we need to oversight. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences? --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you are an admin, you will often often start up Wikipedia and there will be some irate editor complaining about some action done which they don't agree with (and the same with OTRS e-mails). I try to explain my view with regard to the policies and guidelines, and try to make suggestions about how to go forward. Hopefully we can (and usually do) come to an agreement. Of course, there will be the odd occasion where one has to agree to disagree, and there will be a natural time to drop the stick and maybe try to get someone else to take over. You cannot please all the people all of the time. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]
Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 10 § Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments: Candidates appointed.[edit]

Following community consultation and voting. the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the Functionary team.

  • The following users are appointed as Oversighters:

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2015_CUOS_appointments&oldid=1114197648"